Are democrats more responsible for insane divorce settlement laws?

[Bombtrack]

I don't know if anyone else heard about Harrison Fords wife getting 85 million dollars, PLUS half of everything he makes from now on, but that's just one example. It's just as bad for a guy who's saved up a nest egg of 200 thousand, and then marries a girl for a year, and then he loses half and can't afford to buy a house any more.

So are liberals and democrats in state legislatures more responsible than republicans and conservatives?

I ask this because obviously the democrats tend to be the more pro-women party.

[Spentastic]

1. Er?

You are joking right? It sounds very much like you believe that divorce laws are designed to discriminate against men. Those poor men who on average earn less and are normally required to remain at home and look after children therefore eschewin a career.

Oh, wait a minute. That's women.

[_Jumper_]

2. Who gets the $$$$$ most of the time?

?

[Spentastic]

3. What does that have to do with fairness?

Sounds like a few men not wanting to pay their dues to me. If you want to protect your assets have a pre nup. Of course that indicates you probably shouldn't get married in the first place.

[Bombtrack]

11. there dues? Why should Indiana Jones and Star Wars be handed over

to someone who just married a guy, and THEN have him pay another half of everything else he makes for the rest of his life?

Or if a guy has a net worth of a million, from hard work, why should half of that accumulation be just handed over arbitrarily to someone who gets to keep whatever money from every job they've ever had, and then continue to earn money even if they don't work

[Spentastic]

15. Are you being deliberately obtuse?

"why should half of that accumulation be just handed over arbitrarily to someone who gets to keep whatever money from every job they've ever had, and then continue to earn money even if they don't work"

If you don't wish to do the above, don't get married.

[union_maid]

4. Hardly, I'd think

If a person forfeits half of his or her savings in the dissolution of a short-term marriage in which there were no children then that person either made a bad agreement at some point or had a bad lawyer or did something so horrible during the marriage that damages are actually being awarded, which is pretty unusual these days. Even in states with community property laws, those laws don't apply to money acquired before the marriage.

In the case of Harrison Ford, the settlement sounds reasonable. All of their money was accrued during the marriage and his career was developed during the marriage. I say, more power to Mrs. Ford.

Most women, of course, don't fair as well. Jointly held assets will generally be split or some settlement based on that assumption will be reached. Separately held assets will not be split, but if a judge finds that those assets were accrued with money earned during the marriage, they could be vulnerable. If there are children the custodial parent may be able to remain in the family home until the children are grown. There will be child support if one parent has full physical custody. If one parent had been home and out of the work force for some time prior to the divorce temporary maintenance will probably be awarded, but only for a few years. If, however, the marriage is long..usually over 10 years...retirement income will be shared.

In the real world, most people don't have tremendous assets and the modern, more equal divorce laws are much less generous to women because they assume an equality that the older laws do not. For most people, divorce is a losing proposition financially whether you're a man or a woman. It used to be that the average woman's lifestyle would degrade after divorce where a man's would improve. I don't know if that's true anymore or not, with more women working during marriage and stronger child support collection laws and methods.

[KG]

6. harrison ford will just have to figure out a way to scrape by.

:eyes:

[KG]

5. that seems to be a negotiated settlement

care to point out specific 'insane' settlement laws?

[Bombtrack]

12. it's from an arbitrary law in which the spouse, almost always the wife

gets half.

[KG]

16. not specific.

but thanks for trying.

[snippy]

7. What "insane divorce settlement laws?"

[prolesunited]

8. Actually, women,

especially those with children, are more likely to end up in poverty following a divorce, despite those "insane" divorce settlement laws. Although you can find cases like this, overall statistics prove that women are MUCH worse off following a divorce.

[LincolnMcGrath]

17. Split the income of two WORKING parents

give EITHER parent THE KIDS, and THAT PARENT will be worse off. I know you are to professional to bias the facts with a skewed stat.

I have custody of my three, yet I no longer have my exe's income.

Women are the plaintiff 85% of the time and they are awarded the kids 95% of those very 85% filers.

[prolesunited]

19. In that case, I would be in favor of HER

paying child support.

[Bridget Burke]

9. Sir, please explain why you're blaming the democrats.

Practices vary from state to state--which specific laws are you objecting to? Who sponsored them? Of course, some of the laws go way back. Community Property is mostly found in states that were formerly governed by Spain (then, Mexico).

Among the more flagrant divorces in Houston society, in which the women fleeced their old fool millionaire husbands, both participants were Republican. Of course, we have the recent Neil Bush divorce; because of the poor guy's financial difficulties, his wife got a house and child support. This was a 20+ year marriage & he left her for another woman.

Anyone worried about their fortune needs to use a pre-nup. It's not just men who can get burned.

[Bombtrack]

10. I'm not blaming anyone, I'm asking a question

because the laws are arbitrary and out of whack. There's no reason why any spouse would need to get enough money to never have to work again, and then continue to get half of what they make

I am way more sensitive than the average person to jsut how many divorced woman get screwed by the system and stay in lower economic strata, but the laws on the books don't seem to be fair. Particularly the ones who stay single after divorce. They have among the worst mental and physical health in addition to poverty strickenness all groups, but I just don't think it's sane to say that THOSE women are some how given justice by some 25 year old getting half of what some small bussinessman who's earned a nest egg has made for himself.

[prolesunited]

14. Again, those are the EXCEPTIONS

not the rule.

If you have assets like that and don't protect them, you are an idiot. Why should we have laws to protect you from your own stupidity?

[radwriter0555]

13. People should have the sense to enter into a logical contract when it

comes to marriage.

If they're delusional enough to NOT logically and legally protect their assets through a contract, then who is to blame?

Ignorance of the law doesn't constitute automatic protections.

Seriously, with more than 60% of marriages taking a crap, anyone who doesn't do a pre-nup and an asset protection contract is a fool.

[KG]

18. gee, i was under the impression that marriage was a partnership.

y'know, a 50-50 deal.

when that partnership is disslved what's wrong with an even split?

[Moderator]

20. Locking--as per GD rules

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=937547

1. If you start a thread in the General Discussion forum, you must present your opinion in a manner that is not inflammatory, which respects differences in opinion, and which is likely to lead to respectful discussion rather than flaming. Some examples of things which should generally be avoided are: unnecessarily hot rhetoric, nicknames for prominent Democrats or their supporters, broad-brush statements about groups of people, single-sentence "drive-by" thread topics, etc